Adrian Robert wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2004, at 12:38 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> >Adrian Robert wrote:
> >
> >>Does anyone here actually think it is more important to inform
> >>auto-parsers of the number of lines in the log message (which could
> >>surely be determined anyway by just counting newline characters or
> >>whatever,
> >
> >The line count is important if you want to parse a stream of log
> >messages, and message separators occuring in log messages aren't
> >escaped
> >in some way. CVS has this problem and that's the reason for presenting
> >the line count in Subversion, I guess. At least I immediately thought
> >"ah, good idea" when I saw these line numbers for the first time. 8-)
>
> Good point, though it seems like a bit overengineering for corner cases
> (if 79 contiguous dashes was a string thought likely to occur in log
> messages, perhaps a more clever delimiter, throw in an additional
> character of some sort, for example, might have worked). Still, given
> the state now maybe the best solution would be to add an option to svn
> log, say "-m [include additional annotation for automated parsing]",
> and to _leave out_ the "X lines" message by default -- it's just noise
> to human readers.
hmmm, i wonder if parsers shouldn't just go for the much more
machine-readable xml-format, anyway.
Apart from that, i agree that removing the count of
loglines makes sense in the default 'svn log' case.
Btw, a friend and me have written a higher level python abstraction
for svn-stuff and it's mostly a pain to parse 'svn' output apart from
'svn log --xml'. (And no, i don't want to require the presence of
bindings because that cuts out 95% of them).
holger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 9 20:56:16 2004